Clinical Findings and Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Extraprostatic Extension Identified on Prostate Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe histopathological, clinical and imaging findings among men with extraprostatic extension on prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched our institutional pathology database between 2004 and 2015 for pathology reports detailing extraprostatic extension on prostate biopsy in untreated patients. Patient characteristics, biopsy features, imaging interpretations and outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Of 19,950 patients with prostate cancer on biopsy 112 had extraprostatic extension for a prevalence of 0.6% (95% CI 0.5-0.7). Most of the 112 patients had palpable, high grade (Gleason score 9), high volume disease, which was classified as high risk in 34 (30%), locally advanced in 17 (15%) and metastatic in 39 (35%). Most patients had 1 or 2 cores with extraprostatic extension, typically at the base and with concomitant perineural invasion. Extraprostatic extension was identified by magnetic resonance imaging in 32 of 40 patients (80%). Median followup in those who did not die was 1.3 years (IQR 0.3-4.2). Outcomes in the subgroup of 24 men treated with radical prostatectomy were consistent with high risk disease, including positive margins in 14 (58%), seminal vesicle invasion in 10 (42%) and lymph node invasion in 11 (46%). In the entire cohort the 3-year risks of metastasis and overall mortality were 32% (95% CI 22-44) and 37% (95% CI 27-50), respectively. We did not find evidence to suggest that the proportion of cores with cancer that also had extraprostatic extension was associated with overall mortality (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Extraprostatic extension is a rare finding on prostate biopsy. It is strongly associated with other features of aggressive prostate cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".